To think the vet practice is in it for the money?

[QuietTiger]

Long story short, our cat had to go to the Emergency Vet last night (Sunday). His usual vet uses an "out of hours emergency service" which covers most of the various vets practices out of hours in our city. When I initially rang up on the phone, I was told by the vet nurse that "The out of hours fee is £70 before examination and treatment". Not a problem for us, the situation was urgent enough that my cat needed to see a vet and we have the money available (although my DH did mutter something about fecking cat always costing money, bastard vets ripping people off... ).

Whilst I was waiting to see the vet, a lady was there with her dog who was very sick - she'd had an emergency spay last week, spent £500 at her own vet and the dog had an infection and was bleeding internally. She was quoted £205 for treatment, the vets were also planning on keeping the dog overnight. The vet wanted a £200 deposit for treatment. BUT, because the lady only had £100 until tuesday when she got paid (and she was distraught by this time, because it was literally life or death), the vet was refusing to treat the dog apart from making it comfortable. The lady asked if she could pay the remainder this morning when she collected the dog, the vet was adamant that she had to leave a £200 deposit. He offered the PTS option (but it still would have cost £160!)

AIBU to think that the vet was being money grabbing and only had finances in the forefront of his mind? I was particularly livid because the vet insisted on discussing this in the waiting room in front of me and 2 other people, instead of giving the lady the curtosey of discussing her financial afairs and dog treatment in private. I appreciate that the vets concern was that the owner wouldn't collect the dog or pay for the cost of treatment, but surely their job is to relieve suffering and give emergency treatment? If you didn't care about your pet, you wouldn't be taking it to an emergceny vet at 9pm on a Sunday night, surely?

QT

He's a bastard, I always assumed vets had to treat an animal brought to them (but didn't have to give the animal back if the person refused to pay) don't know where I came up with that.

Vallhala - the plumber knows where you live - people walk into vets of the street and expect £100's of pounds worth of treatment.

If you become a vet do you suddenly become responsible for every pet within a 50 mile radius?

Why are owners not responsible?? I work for our local cat charity and am constantly appalled by peoples treatment of animals - our vet works totally pro bono - but I can see no reason why he should have to in his processional life

If you can't afford a pet don't have one

My friends dog was attacked a couple of weeks ago. Not sure on the details but she has been told by the vet that he needs reconstruction on one of his legs and is more than likely 'in agony'.

She doesn't have £10 to spare let alone £1000 upwards that he quoted for treatment. She offered to pay in installments and he turned her down flat and said she either paid in full, left the dog in agony or put him down.

She got some painkillers and the dog is still at home as she tries to decide what to do. PDSA won't help becuase the dog is already injured. This is a RSPCA vet.

Not all vets are like that! Last week was sitting in the waiting room and an elderly lady came out with her dog. The receptionest said £50 shall I add it to your outstanding bill? The vet appeared behind her and said "oh no not £50 today for Mrs X its a £5 speical day!" and winked at the old lady. How nice was that?!

'PDSA won't help because the dog is already injured.'

Not sure why that would matter, if you qualify for help from the PDSA they will give it.

She needs to do something, leaving an animal to suffer is cruel.

That is a lovely story Sugarmuppet!

sherby - why does she not have insurance ?

I don't want to sound heartless as animals are my passion - but do think people who have pets without insurance are as irresponsible as people who drive cars without it. (yes I know hard to get in some cases but that's not the vets problem!)

Pets are not a right they are a privilege

The PDSA said they couldn't offer any insurance because the dog was already injured, I don't think she qualifys for benefits, not 100% sure on the ins and outs.

I spoke with her again this morning and she hasn't decided what to do, I think the dog will end up being put down tbh.

Vets really pissed me off tbh.

Ours would charge £30 to actually see a dog. Consultation fee.

Then you had to pay whatever the treatment was on top - usually around £58.99 - just a few pence short of being able to claim for it.

Basically, a visit to the vets cost on average £88. The dogs got a lot of treatment at home!

sherby - does she know who the owner of the dog that attacked her dog is? They may have insurance that could be claimed against. It may just apply to dogs attacking a human but it's worth a try. They may offer to pay.

Either way leaving a dog that is in serious pain for several weeks is pretty cruel

My husband is self-employed (not as a vet) and asks for money upfront before he will do any work. That's because he likes to eat, and so does his family. There's nobody to chase bad debt for him, time spent getting money out of people is time he's not earning anything else. Tough. The vet was offering to make the pet comfortable, I don't really see that he was being that cruel tbh.

I hear what you're saying EW and I too am a rescuer. However, whether or not the owner has insurance is down to them and not the fault or responsibility of the ill or injured animal so why make them suffer?

And surely the owner in the OP could have provided some proof of ID and residence so that the vet knew where she lives too?

Would we say that it's tough shit about the child who lives in poverty and without shoes on it's feet because the parents should be buying shoes and not gin? Of course not!

Just as we don't visit the sins of the father upon the child, neither should we punish the in pain and quite possibly dying dog because of the owner.

I agree people should have insurance for their pets or be able to afford all eventualities.

However, most vets still require payment upfront even if people are insured. We are also in a situation in this country where many people are being forced to give up their pets because they can't afford them. People who keep them in spite of finacial difficulty, but can afford their day to day care and are willing to go without and pay by installemnts to pay for veterinary care should be commended, others are just chucking their pet in the nearest pound or rescue centre.

No-one expects vets to work for free. However, at best the vet mentioned in the OP was unprofessional, discussing a clients personal business in front of others. My opinion won't change that it is disgusting to allow someone's dog to die whent hey are practially begging you to save it as they only have part payment and will need to pay the rest in a few days. The vet could have at least covered their costs by taking part payment, even if the dog's owner never came back to pay the rest.

IMO, a vet that would treat a dog and owner like that has lost sight of why they became a vet. What a bloody heartless thing to do.

An animal loving vet, which they all should be, would not have done what that one did. Yes, they are a business, but they are also one which should have compassion and understanding as high priorities.

EWeatherwax, there have already been examples in this thread about why your post is out of order, so I won't address that any further, other than to say I'm quite shocked by your stance.

Midori has put that so much better than I can. I'm one of the buggers who has to pick up the pieces she speaks of. I deal with the dogs handed over to rescue, to pounds where if they're not rehomed or taken in by rescue they can be and often are PTS immediately and the deal with too the dogs just thrown into the street because owners can't afford them.

And my vets are one of the many, many practices up and down the country who want payment upfront, although my dogs are insured.

Vallhala - I think a society, we do to a degree - otherwise benefits would be given as food vouchers etc

Midori - Chasing unpaid debts is expensive and time consuming an unproductive. To cover the cost of a credit controller - the fees for paying clients would have to be and I'm sure in some surgeries would have to be increased.

Bit like tax payers and benefits lol

Personally I would like to see a community based insurance scheme a bit like credit unions where where there was more flexibility and cover for more difficult circumstances

please tell me why my post is out of order - expecting people to take some responsibly?

As a society, we may do. That's a Governmental decision, EW. The OP's scenario isn't.

Perhaps I should post an AIBU not to feed my neighbour's starving child, even though I can afford to, to teach her mother to buy food instead of cider?

I can feel the flames already!

I don't consider your view to be one that is consistant with the statement "Animals are my passion".

Regardless, the bloody vet still deserves to be PTS and I still hope and pray that the poor dog makes it.

Why on earth should I have my dog insured? My horse has been insured for bloody years - my current horse for 14 years, at £50 a month. My insurers will only pay out for any treatment once (over a year). She had really bad mud rash last year - claimed on the insurance - this year, my inusurance policy exempts mud rash. Undiagnosed lameness in hind fetlock, claimed on insurance, now that fetcock is exempt from the insurance policy.

Vet walks on to yard "Is your horse insured - oh good, we have this new treatment, let's try this shall we." I dare not cancel my horse insurance as I know the minute I do she will do something stupid in the field and it will cost me a fortune.

If anything is wrong with my dog, I can afford to pay his vet's bills. I noticed when he was there last week that on his notes on the screen the first line says 'Not insured'. Why would that be? Of what possible interest could it be to the vet, other than as it is with my horse vet - if you are insured, it is a licence to try out all the new fangled treatments and charge it to your insurance company. Therby increasing everybodies premiums.

do you feed your neighbours starving child Valhalla?
Bear in mind that it is only vets who seem to be expected to fork out for other people's pets.

I have a great vet, but I had to shop around. Some vets here charge £30 just to see you. I have chickens that have occassionally needed vet treatment, and my chicken owning vet never charges me more that £20 for consultation and meds. It does sound like the emergency vet is taking the piss, tbh. They have you over a barrel if you have a much loved sick pet. Oh, and no insurance here. Can't get chickens insured.

It's not about expecting people to take responsibility, EW, because the majority of pet owners do. If you've read the other posts on this thread, you will already know the answer to your own question. In many instances, pet insurance will not pay out, or it is more economical and therefore sensible and responsible to put money aside each month to pay for anything as it comes up (sorry, don't remember which poster brought that up). And you describing these people, these caring, loving, responsible pet owners as irresponsible is horrible. I much agree with Val. Your view is inconsistent with the statement. Not to mention the blindingly obvious point that in almost all cases like the one mentioned in the OP, even with insurance, payment would need to be made upfront and then claimed back, so insurance would not have helped in this instance.

So do I ! I spend 2 weekends a month trying to save abandoned cats from starving or freezing to death. That's why I want people to take responsibly. Yesterday I collected 6 of the skinniest 6 week old kittens from a shed - when t was -12. I have been to the same house twice before - the woman obviously does not remember it was me as she kept saying she didn't have enough money to get her cat spayed. I had give her leaflets about our free neutering on both the last occasions.

I am not saying what the op saw s n the same league by any means but am against the general Vet bashing that has gone on on this thread -

If the Op felt so bad why didn't she offer to pay?????

coatgate - a lot of vets will actually try to keep costs down for the client. It is not an exact science - vets are always calculating the benefit of treatment/tests with regard to the cost/effectiveness of treeatment. So obviously if something is expensive, but 50% likely to work, they are more likrely to try it on the insured pet, than push it on the pet who's owner is paying all the bill.

I would guess the vet thought the dog might well be going to die, and had maybe had experience of: "I brought my dog to you and asked you to save its life, and it died so you can whistle for your fecking money."

What could the vet do then? Refuse to give the owners the dead dog back? "That's handy, saves us having to bury it too."